Based on a couple of the reviews it sounds like Intel is doing really well on a very old node and more or less beating AMDs part for part comparison by adding more little cores and better cache for ipc and MT gains. Power draw is better on this refresh but worse than AMDs 5nm chips, but one review showed idle power draw on the amd 7000 series at ~100w vs ~60W on the intel system at the plug which is concerning and a couple reviewers are yet to test intels claim that they can match last gen perf at ~1/4 the power draw which might actually give intel the perf/watt crown. REnder tests I saw measuring KJ drawed per task did show AMD about 15% more efficient BUT at single core the draws are the same so depends on how hard you're hammering and the workloads. I think Intel has the huge cost advantage due to cheaper MBs, memory and sounds like AMD 7000 series sales are hurting due to the large platform cost. I think Intels meteor lake parts will be the most interesting, if Intel can actually execute on time we'll see a shop who clearly can execute on an old node hopefully surprise on a modern node.

The gp was probably trolling given that it is obvious apple only makes processors for phones and laptops that have much less than half the world's market share. Not even counting servers or workstations. But with the advent of graviton and oracle's arm server nodes, I do think the gp made an unintentional point about arm defeating amd and Intel. If we see some higher end Chromebooks start making intoads for things besides browsing and mail that will probably be the writing on the wall for both amd and intel to pivot and fast.

Yes I have an AM4 12c and will probably switch b/c the iGPU is betyer and Raptor Lake seems to idle better.

Only if you like walled gardens and paying 10 times more for RAM and SSDs.

I've been supporting the linux port to M1 on Patreon, and significant progress has been made.

However if you look at system price I think you'll find the Apple products pretty price competitive. The m1 mini is pretty nice for the price, the 14" and 16" MBPs are also competitive, and even the apple studio.

Sure it's easy to ignore things like a quality display, keyboard, and touchpad. Especially on things like memory bandwidth and energy efficiency apple are hard to match. Sad that the vast majority of the PC market is limited to 128 bit wide memory (60-80GB/sec), which Apple matches on the lowest end M1 (66GB/sec) or M2 (100GB/sec), but also doesn't charge particularly much to increase to 200GB/sec or 400GB/sec. Sure the Apple Studio with the M1 Ultra is pricey with 800GB/sec, but is unmatched by even the pricey Thread ripper Pro with 200GB/sec.

Sure some off brand laptops with 1 or more worse quality features like battery life, weight, screen, keyboard, or touchpad can win on price/perf. Often they don't last nearly as long and you get much less if you try to resell them later.